Rune_74: Sheesh, there is no meter for what is and isn't an rpg. That is purely subjective.

Yes, the one thing that seems glaringly obvious is that the term has no agreed upon meaning anymore. Why would anyone use a term that has no meaning? It's become a fluff adjective like "cool" or "sexy", and serves about as much purpose.

Originally Posted by Thrasher
As I pointed out to you, which will stand repeating since you didn't get it the first time, the definition in that dictionary, which BTW, is not one with any obvious pedigree, does not agree with how you are using it. I know English isn't your first language, but "made inferior", in this case means changed to become inferior, not created inferior from the start. You usage is far from "perfect". It's not completely incorrect, just mostly.

Something is rotten in Denmark again, as becomes apparent when someone dares to correct you.

Mostly incorrect?

Do you prefer that I link from Merriam-Webster and post an identical Adjective?

Sure, Thrasher. You might almost convince yourself that I'm "wrong" because I'm using corrupt in a way that you don't personally agree with.

To me, the theory seemed sound until it was put into practice. The application of the theory was the corrupting factor - from my point of view. It was a good concept tainted by the flaws made apparent through its usage. It's hard to get any clearer than that.

Also, I said "utterly useless" AS A DEFINITION - not altogether. I found it interesting enough to talk about, so it's of some use - definitely.

Even in your fantasy universe where I'm wrong because I use words you wouldn't personally use - how important is that one word, really?

Is your position so weak that you must attempt pedantic corrections on someone who's from another country?

Don't you realise what that tells people about you?

haha. Really? So you are just posting here hoping you convince no one? Can you be any more disingenuous? And then more thinly veiled insults? Not only is something rotten in Denmark, it's evil as well.

Yes, I'm evil because you don't believe me. Obviously

No, I'm not hoping to convince anyone - I'm hoping to be understood. If I'm wrong or otherwise have a flaw in my perception - I prefer to be the one convinced.

I have no doubt "hoping to convince" is the position from which you're arguing - but we don't all do that.

4: to alter from the original or correct form or version <the file was corrupted>

intransitive verb
1a: to become tainted or rotten b: to become morally debased

2: to cause disintegration or ruin

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
Sure, Thrasher. You might almost convince yourself that I'm "wrong" because I'm using corrupt in a way that you don't personally agree with.

Haha. You got this selfish egocentric way of looking at facts thinking that everything is personal and revolving about the individual. No. A definition of a word doesn't not depend on your ego, like you seem think everything in the world does.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
To me, the theory seemed sound until it was put into practice. The application of the theory was the corrupting factor - from my point of view. It was a good concept tainted by the flaws made apparent through its usage. It's hard to get any clearer than that.

What imagined theory are you referring to? We have a definition proposed pure and simple. The subject was the definition not some theory made up in Dart's head.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
Also, I said "utterly useless" AS A DEFINITION - not altogether. I found it interesting enough to talk about, so it's of some use - definitely.

Even in your fantasy universe where I'm wrong because I use words you wouldn't personally use - how important is that one word, really?

Because your communication is poor and needs clarification. Is that clear enough for you? If you REALLY care enough to be understood, then you would also try to understand. But we really know this is not about being understood or understanding, it's about seeking attention, and your own egotistical validation. Convincing others of your fake superiority. Nothing more…

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
Yes, I'm evil because you don't believe me. Obviously

More lies, I see. No you are evil because you insult people anyone who actually disagree with you and don't validate you.

Originally Posted by Thrasher
You can't. Merriam-Websert doesn't even have eh same usage you posted. Another false claim. WHy am I not suprised. You just keep digging you grave deeper and deeper with more lies. Standard practice.

Merriam-Webster

You're posting the transitive verb.

You have to scroll down for the adjective. Try again

Haha. You got this selfish egocentric way of looking at facts thinking that everything is personal and revolving about the individual. No. A definition of a word doesn't not depend on your ego, like you seem think everything in the world does.

Are you sure you're not talking about yourself? It sure sounds like you're talking about your own definition of what a definition is

What imagined theory are you referring to? We have a definition proposed pure and simple. The subject was the definition not some theory made up in Dart's head.

The theory was the proposition. You're not following too well

Because your communication is poor and needs clarification. Is that clear enough for you? If you REALLY care enough to be understood, then you would also try to understand. But we really know this is not about being understood or understanding, it's about seeking attention, and your own egotistical validation. Convincing others of your fake superiority. Nothing more…

You mean you feel inferior for some reason that compels you to try and "best me" - and you fail again and again?

Are you sure that's wise?

As horrible as I may be - it seems you're ignoring what other people are saying about you as well. Maybe you should take a deep breath and reflect a bit?

I'm not better than you - I just don't argue from an emotional position and a desire to be better than others. That's your weakness because you have this obsession about not admitting defeat - but it doesn't make you a bad person, so don't take it to heart so.

More lies, I see. No you are evil because you insult people anyone who actually disagree with you and don't validate you.

IIRC, you've made similar statements before. Why do you keep exchanging with an evil person? It's like you keep forgetting how horrible I am until you're proven wrong again.

People aren't evil because you're not smarter than they are. It's not a crime, either.

3: adulterated or debased by change from an original or correct condition <a corrupt version of the text>
— cor·rupt·lyadverb
— cor·rupt·nessnoun

See corrupt defined for English-language learners »

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
Are you sure you're not talking about yourself? It sure sounds like you're talking about your own definition of what a definition is

Wow I know you like to make everything egocentric, but quoting a dictionary is far from it. These are kindergarten argument tactics Dart. Very poor form.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
The theory was the proposition. You're not following too well

Wow! You can't change the subject of any argument to another imagined object after the fact. We were discussing the definition. You originally said the definition was corrupt. That still and continues to be gibberish.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
You mean you feel inferior for some reason that compels you to try and "best me" - and you fail again and again?

I'm sure you think the world all revolves around you, and you are always right. And that everyone should feel inferior to you, but no, you are wrong again and are a liar and an ass, and need to be called out on it.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
People aren't evil because you're not smarter than they are. It's not a crime, either.

haha, getting another false sense of superiority and liking underhanded assholery? We are not surprised.

Wow I know you like to make everything egocentric, but quoting a dictionary is far from it. These are kindergarten argument tactics Dart. Very poor form.

It would seem even kindergarten tactics is a challenge for you

Wow! You can't change the subject of any argument to another imagined object after the fact. We were discussing the definition. You originally said the definition was corrupt. That still and continues to be gibberish.

Yes, it's corrupt - because it's been corrupted after being put to use. I explained this already. The theory (or proposition, if you prefer) was a good one (as in, it made good sense) - but after testing it, we came to see how X-Com wasn't really an RPG to us and how it was not reversable - meaning it would fail to identify a lot of games.

I know you don't agree - but you should be able to comprehend my meaning and why my usage of the word is quite acceptable. Oh, I don't mean that you will CONCEDE the point - but that you'll know I'm right inside yourself. That's enough for me.

I'm sure you think the world all revolves around you, and you are always right. And that everyone should feel inferior to you, but no, you are wrong again and are a liar and an ass, and need to be called out on it.

Yes - do go on

You're demonstrating my point with great clarity.

haha, getting another false sense of superiority and liking underhanded assholery? We are not surprised.

That would be the royal "we", right?

I can't wait for your next response, as I'm sure is a sentiment shared by many expecting productive exchanges in this thread. Wouldn't you agree?

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
Tainted is there and debased literally means inferior (of lower quality)

Nope. Not in this context. Debased and tainted in the context of corrupted means modified to be made worse. The definition of an RPG is what is it is. Is has not been modified to made worse. Try again.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
It would seem even kindergarten tactics is a challenge for you

Everything is a challenge unless you are the great egocentric Dart. No, your transparency is far from a challenge. But I'm sure you'd like to think otherwise.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
Yes, it's corrupt - because it's been corrupted after being put to use. I explained this already. The theory (or proposition, if you prefer) was a good one (as in, it made good sense) - but after testing it, we came to see how X-Com wasn't really an RPG to us and how it was not reversable - meaning it would fail to identify a lot of games.

That's poor logic. A definition doesn't not change or become corrupted when tested. It becomes invalidated, but even in this case it was not. You still haven't made clear what the NPCs interactions are that make the new XCOM pass the criteria. They need to be meaningful and not just menu facades.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
but that you'll know I'm right inside yourself. That's enough for me.

Originally Posted by Thrasher
Nope. Not in this context. Debased and tainted in the context of corrupted means modified to be made worse. The definition of an RPG is what is it is. Is has not been modified to made worse. Try again.

Yes, it's been made worse. That's why it's debased. It's not a definition until it works as a definition. It was a good proposition but it failed after being tested. We've been through this a few times.

Everything is a challenge unless you are the great egocentric Dart. No, your transparency is far from a challenge. But I'm sure you'd like to think otherwise.

That's poor logic. A definition doesn't not change or become corrupted when tested. It becomes invalidated, but even in this case it was not. You still haven't made clear what the NPCs interactions are that make the new XCOM pass the criteria. They need to be meaningful and not just menu facades.

It was a proposition for a definition. At least, that's how I saw it. You may have seen it differently - but we're talking about my usage of words.

Yes, I've made it clear what those interactions were. You actually said "that explains it" - but I guess it didn't. The new X-Com has a personal researcher giving you advice if you ask for it - and she will research what you ask of her. Actually, it has several NPCs that work like this - that you talk to. It also has actual rescue missions where you need to talk to NPCs and guide them to safety.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
Yes, it's been made worse. That's why it's debased. It's not a definition until it works as a definition. It was a good proposition but it failed after being tested. We've been through this a few times.

No, that's not how it works. The definition is not made worse. It is what it is. It is a definition. Period. It can be validated or invalidated. But not corrupted. Corruption would be a change to the definition, like adding or removing propositions. But that's not what happened here. But whatever… You inability as a non-native speaker to concede this simple fact is just a symptom of your egocentricity.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
but we're talking about my usage of words.

We were talking about HiddenX's "definition". He used that word for his criteria? Again, it's no always about you. Is it sinking in yet?

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
It also has actual rescue missions where you need to talk to NPCs and guide them to safety.

You actually guide them by giving them directions, or just tell them to follow you and without them really interacting with you or the enemies?

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
So, speaking for the other members of this board without asking them isn't egocentric?

Ok, gotcha

If you actually cared about anyone else on this board, you would have remembered previous people saying the same thing. You're rather fucked up to turn your own denial into an accusation of egocentricity against me. That just further validates my claim.

Thanks for the diagrams, the first one is spot on regarding the raw (singular) core elements, the other diagrams are irrelevant to the definition as they could not exist without the prime three.

From where i stand it It looks as if you might have had interaction and exploration crossed wired in the CPRG meter system? though they may appear similar they are not the same, the game world has to be explored before you are to able to interact with it. If you stand still at the game start and do not travel (explore) there will be no advancement of the other two core elements, storyline and character - in other words they are intertwined and dependant on each other.

1. Character progression relies on storyline and exploration.
2. Storyline advances with exploration and character advancement.
3. Exploration progresses storyline and character.

Combat is a sub-element because it can be bypassed for game progression, eg: by diplomacy, furthermore combat can cross the boundary lines of more than one core element, combat is the grey area of the whole system - as the second diagram clearly shows.

Every known RPG game sub element comes under the heading of one of the three core elements.

Contrary to the disbelievers we are nearing closer to a RPG definition, like it or hate it, the definition can be used for future reference and clarification as required by any gamer - most importantly it can be used to show if a game is a RPG or not.

Character Development
1) you can control 1 or more characters (Role-Playing!)
2) you get experience or skill points by questing (1 or more of these: exploring, win battles, solving riddles, solving quests)
3) by getting more experience you can level up your characters (skills, talents,…)
4) you can equip your characters with items you find, loot, shop for

Exploration
5) you can explore the locations of the game (gameworld)
6) you can interact with NPCs or factions (-> quest givers)
7) you can manipulate the gameworld in some way

Story
8) a story is told, that is more or less influenced by your actions
(ideally your choices have consequences)

Optional:Combat
9) the game includes some kind of combat that depends on your character and/or item level

Wulf said:

Contrary to the disbelievers we are nearing closer to a RPG definition, like it or hate it, the definition can be used for future reference and clarification as required by any gamer - most importantly it can be used to show if a game is a RPG or not.

I agree.

— For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong. - HL Mencken

@HiddenX and Wulf: I'd put NPC interaction in the story department. Or actually, split it up. The fact that you can interact with NPCs is part of exploration, how you interact with NPCs is part of Story (dialogues).

Either way, I like what you came up with so far. I was a fan of the original CRPG meter and am sure something can be devised to make categorization easier. That said, I appreciate the new symmetry and simplicity. Weighting will be necessary at some point.

I'd like to propose three attributes to further specify each main category and provide proper balance.

degree of freedom — can you do whatever you want or are you limited in your actions?

level of interactivity — how much can you actively interact with something?

choice & consequence — are there different options available in regard to how you progress? Do they make a difference?

These are closely related but describe different things.

Character Development
You can control 1 or more characters (Role-Playing!). Characters progress.

degree of freedom: you can be or become whatever you want

level of interactivity: you can control aspects of your character (e.g. stats, skills, looks, equipment, professions)

choice & consequence: your character development choices have an impact on gameplay

Exploration:
You can explore the locations of the game (gameworld)

degree of freedom: you can reasonably go where you want

level of interactivity: you can manipulate items, the game world, interact with NPCs or factions (-> quest givers)

choice & consequence: you can follow different paths to reach a goal

Story:
A story is told, that is more or less influenced by your actions

degree of freedom: you can do what you want when you want to do it

level of interactivity: you can talk with NPCs about different topics

choice & consequence: you can make choices in dialogues or in the story as such, which may influence the story

(Combat:)
The game includes some kind of combat that depends on your character and/or item level.

degree of freedom:

level of interactivity:

choice & consequence:

(Combat is a bit more abstract.. not sure.)

@HiddenX: Maybe open a new thread for this?

— "Mystery is important. To know everything, to know the whole truth, is dull. There is no magic in that. Magic is not knowing, magic is wondering about what and how and where." ~ Cortez, from The Longest Journey

I don't think choice and consequence should really be considered in what makes an RPG. Most of the classic RPGs from the Nintendo, Super Nintendo and other consoles have no choices at all to make. You just follow a linear story. Doesn't make them any less of an RPG then a game like the Witcher 2.